"In later years Marx and Engels changed their minds. In his main treatise, Das Capital, first published in 1867, Marx saw things in a different way. Socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature." But it cannot appear before capitalism has reached its full maturity. There is but one road to the collapse of capitalism, namely the progressive evolution of capitalism itself. Then only will the great final revolt of the working class give it the finishing stroke and inaugurate the everlasting age of abundance.

"From the point of view of this later doctrine Marx and the school of orthodox Marxism reject all policies that pretend to restrain, to regulate and to improve capitalism. Such policies, they declare, are not only futile, but outright harmful. For they rather delay the coming of age of capitalism, its maturity, and thereby also its collapse. They are therefore not progressive, but reactionary. It was this idea that led the German Social Democratic party to vote against Bismarck's social security legislation and to frustrate Bismarck's plan to nationalize the German tobacco industry. From the point of view of the same doctrine, the communists branded the American New Deal as a reactionary plot extremely detrimental to the true interests of the working people."

There appear to be two primary claims packed into this passage. First, that Marx rejected any attempt to reform away the worst abuses of capitalism. Second, that Marx posited that the transition from capitalism to communism will occur only after capitalism has reached its full maturity by way of a relatively sudden collapse. The truth of either of these claims is far from clear. Firstly, Marx's own support for a lengthening of the working day seem to contradict Mises' conclusions about Marx's views of reformism. Second, Marx's own views about the transition from capitalism to communism are, generally, quite ambiguous.

In Capital Vol. 1 Marx comes out rather clearly in favor of shortening the working day. How do we reconcile this with the argument made by Mises that Marx opposed all attempts to curb the excesses of capitalism? I am not so sure that these two claims can be reconciled -- Mises' argument is probably made in far to uncompromising of terms. I won't offer much of an answer here other than to say that Marx's views on the matter of reformism can be considered quite ambiguous or quite nuanced, depending on how you come at it. I will also pose one question: Is not a worker living at slightly above subsistence level not a more nourished, well educated, and more effective fighter than a worker living at or below the subsistence level?

Mises' argument about the 'full maturity' of capitalism as a precondition for socialism is also far from clear in Marx's own thought. Marx was a famous supporter of the European uprisings of 1848 and also of the Paris Commune of 1871. These facts are hard to reconcile with the idea that Marx believed that socialism could only emerge, as Mises states, after capitalism has fully developed.

The logic of Mises argument here is also shoddy. As Mises states, Marx does indeed state that socialism emerges from capitalism "with the inexorability of a law of nature." But does it follow from this that socialism can only emerge after capitalism has 'completed' its development? Clearly, it does not; based on this quote alone we could conclude with equal validity that socialism emerges alongside the emergence of capitalism, or that socialism emerges as capitalism expands from a localized phenomenon to a planetary system, or that socialism can only emerge once the capitalist mode of production has incorporated every human being on the planet (which is not even the case today). Mises appears to be drawing a very unambiguous conclusion from one single very ambiguous sentence.

Personally, I would interpret Marx's statement in a different way. Socialism is 'bound' (I think this is too strong a word) to emerge from the capitalist world-system because such a system necessarily produces misery on a large scale. Where the system creates misery there is bound to be resistance. This resistance by living human beings willing to make war upon a system which deprives them of a livelihood, I would argue, is the 'inexorable law of nature.' I am reminded of a statement once made by a famous Indian communist: Let us declare that a state of war does exist, and shall exist.

To be sure, many Marxists have argued that social democracy (as in the New Deal) can be reactionary in certain contexts. However, as far as I am aware, these arguments are developments upon the thought of Marx and Engels -- and it would therefore be incorrect to attribute them to Marx, regardless of their validity. If you're interested in Marxist arguments against New Deal-styled social democracy, the Leninist theory of the 'labor aristocracy' will be your point of departure. The basic argument is that social democracy in the rich countries is the result of unfair value-transfer from poor countries to rich countries. In Marxist parlance this is imperialism. The result is that social democracy functions as a 'release valve' of sorts which, in essence, 'buys off' the first world working class (or certain strata thereof) and reduces the prospects for revolutionary upheaval. But it only does so at the expense of people in less well-off countries who end up being worse off, and this is what makes the developing world the 'storm zones' or the 'weak links' of the imperialist system.

This is a very strange question. I hope you will forgive the extended answer.

The answer will depend upon the precise relation of the state, however conceived, to imperialism; and, if we accept the marxist conception of imperialism as a necessary characteristic of capitalism, the answer to your question depends upon the relation of the state to capitalism. So we need to ask is capitalism possible without a state?

On some level this is a theoretical question. But our theory, if it is to have any correspondence with reality, must be informed by empirical evidence.

For the evidence, I think history bequeaths us every reason to believe that the answer to your question is no: the overwhelming body of historical evidence seems to suggest a vital relationship between the state and capitalism. We can identify the crucial role played by the state in laying the conditions for the accumulation of capital in literally every instance of capitalism ever to have existed. There is not a single counterexample.

There are, of course, many good reasons for capitalists to ensure the stability and longevity of a modern bureaucratic state. It is an important tool in ensuring positive and predictable legal outcomes. Capitalists have found it an important, albeit dangerous instrument in their struggle to ensure a stable money supply or otherwise beneficial monetary policy. It is an important tool in ensuring the ready supply of healthy, productive labor. The state can be called upon to engage in large public works projects, etc., which are too expensive and risky from the standpoint of any given capitalist but which help lay the basis of future capital accumulation (e.g. dams, irrigation, etc); this is particularly true of developing economies, and the same goes for R&D. When the banks collapse or industry falters the state can swoop in to the rescue with subsidies, bail-outs, tariffs, etc. The state helps to protect the capitalist from workers who seek concessions or perhaps even the abolition of the system as a whole.

And, most important from the standpoint of imperialism, the state can ensure that foreigners comply with the necessary conditions for future accumulation of capital by domestic firms. It can enclose the commons. It can drown the savages in blood when they resist. It can seize the resources. It can ensure the steady flow of opium into a primitive country which seeks to rid itself of the scourge. It can prop up the client state. If I am (say) an American capitalist, I will cling to the American state because the state, and only the state, has the military capabilities necessary to ensure the (say) steady supply of oil from the (say) Middle East.

And what's more, I will cling to the state because if I don't, somebody else will. And then I will lose.

My own view, therefore, is that capitalism (and imperialism) necessarily calls forth the state. Imperialism is not possible without the state because capitalism is not possible without the state.

We can identify the crucial role played by the state in laying the conditions for the accumulation of capital in literally every instance of capitalism ever to have existed. There is not a single counterexample.

Is that meant to imply that capital accumulation would not occur well, whether under capitalism or some other economic system, without the state?

Nope; there are intermediate steps in logic that I take before reaching something resembling that conclusion. The bit you quoted is simply meant to draw attention to the fact, proffered by the long history of capitalism, that there is no empirical evidence to back the claim that capitalism is possible without the state.

What this does necessitate, however, is a deeper historical focus: we must ask why has capitalism never existed without the state. To answer this we will need to mobilize a number of empirical case studies. I'm not in the business of writing a book here in /r/debatecommunism :P so above I offered what I think are several explanations of why, in various times and places, capitalists (particularly 'big' capitalists) have ensured the stability and longevity in the state. And, judging by reading the Financial Times over a cup of coffee this morning, big capitalists tend to agree.

well Marx wanted a classless stateless society seeing the present state (a part of which is government) as an organisation for the management of the interests of the bourgeoisie, and thus cannot act in the interests of workers. It’s hard to say what Marx though about specific things (unless he explicitly wrote about them), but I doubt he would have been totally against government intervention; the self-activity of the working-class was often satisfied by government realisation that some anger must be quelled, to avoid revolution. However it is certainly from this idea that reformists gain strength, but it’s no contradiction to one year get regulations from government of factories and the next to overthrow said government, it only represents the vicissitudes and possibilities of the struggle. Spain was the first country to introduce the 8hour day due to a general strike led by the anarchist CNT, yet 17 years later a social revolution erupted and capitalism and the state abolished.

Marx's critique of capitalism was of 'pure capitalism', capitalism as a set of premises built upon by logically relationships. The internal contradictions in capitalism could be ameliorated in the short-term by the actions of government, this was Lenin's imperialism theory in which capitals contradictions were 'outsourced' temporarily, to imperialism.

Judging by your flair, wouldn't you be able to determine roughly where Capitalism standards through dialectical materialism? I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I know Lenin predicted that Imperialism was the highest stage of Capitalism, so if he's right, it should be close-ish-maybe.

The evolution of capitalism, for Marx, was the continued subjugation of the proletariat and the centralization of capital. The proletariat are only enable to engage in communist revolution when they develop a "class consciousness." The class consciousness of the proletariat develops amongst the class itself as they recognize their shared condition and revolutionary power. When the capitalist class and the state attempt to quell potentially revolutionary workers' movements with concessions--e.g. unionization, enhanced benefits--these concessions benefit the capitalist class more than the proletariat. This is because the capitalist class is on the losing side of history.

The collapse of capitalism, for Marx, could have one of two results: socialism or barbarity. Class consciousness and the proletarian revolution lead to socialism, the continuation of capitalism will ultimately lead to barbarity: "the inherent limit of capital is capital itself."

In this quote, Mises makes it seem that Marx says that capitalism collapses and then we get communism, and that is simply not the case. The collapse of capitalism, for the transition to communism, is necessarily revolutionary in Marx.

Edit: /u/Craneomotor is correct. I have only read the first volume, but Marx is concerned with systemic problems and consequently systemic change. Systemic protest, or revolution, should be antagonistic to attempts by the ruling class to pacify their demands through concessions. These concessions threaten the efficacy of the revolution.

I see, so even though capitalism, according to the theory, leads to very bad consequences, it's necessary for those consequences to manifest themselves in order to awaken the proletariat. So progressives can be seen as working against the Marxist revolution, in a way?

So progressives can be seen as working against the Marxist revolution, in a way?

In a sense, yes. I usually hate metaphors, but think of it like this, Liberal reformism is like putting band-aids on an infected cut and thinking the problem's solved. In this metaphor, the infected cut is the "systemic contradictions within capitalism". Because you're addressing the symptoms and not the cause, you'll never have a viable long-term solution.

In this sense, some Marxists may end up agreeing with criticisms of certain welfare policies, but that doesn't mean they're rejected wholesale. Marx, for example, supported reformist policy where he thought it could advance or agitate proletarians into further action/class struggle.

As /u/marksnangles hinted at in his other post. Issues like these are often up for debate and often it boils down to the specific context we're discussing. In short, sometimes you have to reform, sometimes you have to revolt.